Dear Colleagues,

As we know, well-being versus discomfort in organization is a challenging and relevant issue. Research on the topic is rich and substantial (Taheri et al., 2019); thus, how people feel in organizations is a key point in terms of consequences on professionals’ work-related discomfort and the growth of the organization itself (Alfes et al., 2012; Bakker, 2015; Bücker et al., 2018; D’Angelo et al., 2018; Diener, 2009; Di Sipio et al., 2012; Guest, 2017; Ilies et al., 2015; Lopez-Martin & Topa, 2019; Özü et al., 2017; Richter et al. 2014; Sorensen et al., 2019; Spreitzer & Porath, 2012). The current debate on well-being shows many works with a complex approach to the study of this topic. Some big questions still remain to be debated, and it is on these questions that we are going to establish our call for papers. As shown by Taheri et al. (2019), there’s an increasing number of theories and models aimed at describing and explaining how various factors influence well-being (versus discomfort) in organizations. Some of these are related to job characteristics or are at the individual level (e.g., meaningful work, self-control skills, psychological capital, job security, successful education, sense of control of affairs, and the ability to accept the realities of life), while others are at the groupal and organizational level (e.g., organizational support, better interpersonal behavior, transformative leadership, organizational culture, etc.). That is, well-being is the result of the combination and the mutual influences of many causal factors. Among the issues that have emerged over the years, we believe that three are particularly relevant and require further attention.

The first of these concerns the fact that, when focusing on well-being, researchers’ and practitioners’ recommendations have often been to shift attention away from factors usually associated with performance (Guest, 2017). According to some authors (Guest, 2017; Kroon et al., 2009), this recommendation is supported by the fact that the dominant approaches focus on performance without paying attention to discomfort. The risk with this kind of approach is to foster a sort of binary logic in practices, with performance and well-being in two necessarily antagonistic positions (Alfes et al., 2012; Ho & Kuvaas, 2019; Ivarsson et al., 2015; Ogbonnaya & Messersmith, 2019; Thomas et al., 2020). Therefore, it is necessary to explore the potential compatibilities between performance and well-being, keeping in mind both the ethical and the economic needs (Guest, 2017; Luna-Arocas & Danvila-del-Valle, 2020; Lundqvist, 2011; Lundqvist & Raglin, 2015; Salas-Vallina et al., 2020). In other words, researchers should explore how to promote adequate levels of performance without compromising well‐being. The second relevant issue is that, even if some studies have focused on discomfort and malaise in organization, quite often they are read as problems derived mainly from personal issues or (at most) from interpersonal conflict. Very little attention is given to the contexts as generators of forms of malaise. Finally, the third issue is linked to the fact that little attention has been given to new forms of malaise (such as malaise from remote/smart working; dependencies on work; fear of the different from oneself; survival syndrome; fear of change).

In summary, the SI aims to put the focus on:

• Critical analysis of the literature on the topic
• New theoretical and methodological perspectives and tools
• Innovative HR management policies to support organisational well-being
• Well-being and malaise in working groups
• Organisations that causes malaise: contextual factors
• New forms of organisational malaise in the light of new social challenges and contextual variables at stake
• Innovative ways of preventing or managing organisational malaise

References:

1. Alfes, K.; Shantz, A.; Truss, C. The link between perceived HRM practices, performance and well-being: the moderating effect of trust in the employer. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2012, 22, 409–427, doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12005.
2. Bakker, A.B. Towards a multilevel approach of employee well-being. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2015, 24, 839–843, doi:10.1080/1359432x.2015.1071423.
3. Buecker, S.; Nuraydin, S.; Simonsmeier, B.A.; Schneider, M.; Luhmann, M. Subjective well-being and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. J. Res. Pers. 2018, 74, 83–94, doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2018.02.007.
4. D’Angelo, C.; Gozzoli, C.; Gazzaroli, D.; Mezzanotte, D. Experiences and consequences on prison police’s well-being. World Futur. 2018, 74, 360–378, doi:10.1080/02604027.2018.1445908.
5. Diener, E. Subjective Well-Being, In Subjective Well-Being: The Science of Well-Being. Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, Netherland, 2009, 11–58.
6. Di Sipio, A., Falco, A., Kravina, L., & De Carlo, N. A. Positive personal resources and organizational well-being: resilience, hope, optimism, and self-efficacy in an italian health care setting. Test., Psychom., Methodol. Appl. Psychol., 2012, 19, 81–95.
7. Guest, D.E. Human resource management and employee well-being: towards a new analytic framework. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2017, 27, 22–38, doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12139.
8. Ho, H.; Kuvaas, B. Human resource management systems, employee well‐being, and firm performance from the mutual gains and critical perspectives: The well‐being paradox. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 59, 235–253, doi:10.1002/hrm.21990.
9. Ilies, R.; Aw, S.S.Y.; Pluut, H. Intraindividual models of employee well-being: What have we learned and where do we go from here? Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2015, 24, 827–838, doi:10.1080/1359432x.2015.1071422.
10. Ivarsson, A.; Stenling, A.; Fallby, J.; Johnson, U.; Borg, E.; Johansson, G. The predictive ability of the talent development environment on youth elite football players’ well-being: A person-centered approach. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2015, 16, 15–23, doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.09.006.
11. Kroon, B., Van de Voorde, K., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2009). Cross‐level effects of high‐performance work practices on burn-out: Two counteracting mediating mechanisms compared. Pers. Rev., 2009, 38, 509–525.
12. Lopez-Martin, E.; Topa, G. Organizational Culture and Job Demands and Resources: Their Impact on Employees’ Wellbeing in a Multivariate Multilevel Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 2019, 16, 3006, doi:10.3390/ijerph16173006.
13. Luna-Arocas, R.; Vallebc, I.D.-D.- Does Positive Wellbeing Predict Job Performance Three Months Later? Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2020, 15, 1–15, doi:10.1007/s11482-020-09835-0.
14. Lundqvist, C. Well-being in competitive sports—The feel-good factor? A review of conceptual considerations of well-being. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2011, 4, 109–127, doi:10.1080/1750984x.2011.584067.
15. Lundqvist, C.; Raglin, J.S. The relationship of basic need satisfaction, motivational climate and personality to well-being and stress patterns among elite athletes: An explorative study. Motiv. Emot. 2015, 39, 237–246, doi:10.1007/s11031-014-9444-z.
16. Ogbonnaya, C.; Messersmith, J. Employee performance, well‐being, and differential effects of human resource management subdimensions: Mutual gains or conflicting outcomes? Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2019, 29, 509–526, doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12203.
17. Özü, Öykü; Zepeda, S.; Ilgan, A.; Jimenez, A.M.; Ata, A.; Akram, M. Teachers’ psychological well-being: a comparison among teachers in U.S.A., Turkey and Pakistan. Int. J. Ment. Heal. Promot. 2017, 19, 144–158, doi:10.1080/14623730.2017.1326397.
18. Richter, A.; Näswall, K.; Bernhard-Oettel, C.; Sverke, M. Job insecurity and well-being: The moderating role of job dependence. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2013, 23, 816–829, doi:10.1080/1359432x.2013.805881.
19. Salas‐Vallina, A.; Alegre, J.; López‐Cabrales, Álvaro The challenge of increasing employees’ well‐being and performance: How human resource management practices and engaging leadership work together toward reaching this goal. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 1–15, doi:10.1002/hrm.22021.
20. Sorensen, G.; Peters, S.; Nielsen, K.; Nagler, E.M.; Karapanos, M.; Wallace, L.; Burke, L.; Dennerlein, J.T.; Wagner, G.R. Improving Working Conditions to Promote Worker Safety, Health, and Wellbeing for Low-Wage Workers: The Workplace Organizational Health Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 2019, 16, 1449, doi:10.3390/ijerph16081449.
21. Spreitzer, G., & Porath, C. Creating sustainable performance. Harv. Bus. Rev., 2021, 90, 92–99.
22. Taheri, F.; Pour, M.J.; Asarian, M. An exploratory study of subjective well-being in organizations–A mixed method research approach. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 2019, 29, 435–454, doi:10.1080/10911359.2018.1547671.
23. Thomas, C.E.; Gastin, P.B.; Abbott, G.; Main, L.C. Impact of the talent development environment on the wellbeing and burnout of Caribbean youth track and field athletes. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2020, 20, 1–14, doi:10.1080/17461391.2020.1775894.

Prof. Dr. Caterina Gozzoli
Dr. Diletta Gazzaroli
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Sustainability is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• professional malaise
• organizational well-being
• discomfort in working context
• prevention
• best practices